Jan 28, 2016

The Great Bernie Sanders Whiteness Crisis


Bernie Sanders is scheduled to meet Wednesday with President Barack Obama in the White House for only the second time Ahead of their White House meeting, a look at the Obama-Sanders dynamic, by Juliet Eilperin and Paul Kane, Washington Post, January 26 2016. This signifies the Sanders campaign’s unexpected strength—but also the Vermont Senator’s record of remoteness from the racial identity politics that now dominate the Democratic Party, as personified by Obama.

Recently, Hillary Clinton unleashed her attack dog, Media Matters’ David Brock, to accuse Sanders of racism, saying Sanders’s latest ad paints a “bizarre” portrait of America. Brock argued that the ad was a “slight to the Democratic base” and that “it seems black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders.” [Clinton ally: Black lives ‘don’t matter much’ to Sanders, by Jesse Byrnes, The Hill, January 21, 2016]

Had Bernie Sanders resurrected Leni Riefenstahl to produce his ads? Not exactly.

With Simon and Garfunkel’s song America playing in the background (though it cuts the line “So we bought a pack of cigarettes”), Sanders’s ad showed vignettes of Americans, interspersed with crowds at Bernie Sanders rallies [Art Garfunkel Explains Why He Approved Bernie Sanders’ Use of ‘America,’ by Ted Johnson, Variety, January 22, 2016]. Although the ad went out of its way to include images of minority Sanders supporters, it did not hide the fact the vast majority were white. The bulk of the vignettes evoked Norman Rockwell/New Deal style imagery featuring farmers, families, and small towns, with some SWPL’s and their laptops at coffee shops thrown in as an afterthought.

A decade ago, no one would have batted an eye. In 2004, John Kerry ran an ad criticizing George Bush’s outsourcing policies. It showed half a dozen clips of Kerry meeting with groups of American workers, every single one of whom was white.

In 1996, Bill Clinton ran an ad called “America Back,” which listed his accomplishments while showing videos of Americans. Of the 17 vignettes, only four featured minorities, usually as tokens in a group of whites.

Bernie Sanders is scheduled to meet Wednesday with President Barack Obama in the White House for only the second time Ahead of their White House meeting, a look at the Obama-Sanders dynamic, by Juliet Eilperin and Paul Kane, Washington Post, January 26 2016. This signifies the Sanders campaign’s unexpected strength—but also the Vermont Senator’s record of remoteness from the racial identity politics that now dominate the Democratic Party, as personified by Obama.

Recently, Hillary Clinton unleashed her attack dog, Media Matters’ David Brock, to accuse Sanders of racism, saying Sanders’s latest ad paints a “bizarre” portrait of America. Brock argued that the ad was a “slight to the Democratic base” and that “it seems black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders.” [Clinton ally: Black lives ‘don’t matter much’ to Sanders, by Jesse Byrnes, The Hill, January 21, 2016]

Had Bernie Sanders resurrected Leni Riefenstahl to produce his ads? Not exactly.

With Simon and Garfunkel’s song America playing in the background (though it cuts the line “So we bought a pack of cigarettes”), Sanders’s ad showed vignettes of Americans, interspersed with crowds at Bernie Sanders rallies [Art Garfunkel Explains Why He Approved Bernie Sanders’ Use of ‘America,’ by Ted Johnson, Variety, January 22, 2016]. Although the ad went out of its way to include images of minority Sanders supporters, it did not hide the fact the vast majority were white. The bulk of the vignettes evoked Norman Rockwell/New Deal style imagery featuring farmers, families, and small towns, with some SWPL’s and their laptops at coffee shops thrown in as an afterthought.

A decade ago, no one would have batted an eye. In 2004, John Kerry ran an ad criticizing George Bush’s outsourcing policies. It showed half a dozen clips of Kerry meeting with groups of American workers, every single one of whom was white.

In 1996, Bill Clinton ran an ad called “America Back,” which listed his accomplishments while showing videos of Americans. Of the 17 vignettes, only four featured minorities, usually as tokens in a group of whites.

I did not see a single Asian or Hispanic person. Almost all the whites gave off the “bizarre” gestalt that triggered David Brock. The majority of women and children had blonde hair. The ads also twice featured police officers—while Clinton bragged about strengthening capital punishment.

Of course, Clinton’s actions in office did not match this “white bread” vision of America. He later expressly celebrated white America’s demographic decline. However, it’s notable that he still projected this implicitly white image to the voters when he was looking for voters.

Things are far different today. Hillary Clinton doesn’t even bother pretending she wants to preserve the Old America. The Democratic Party is simply what Steve Sailer calls the “coalition of the fringes” against the core. And white families and workers are now “bizarre.”

What does Clinton view as “normal” America? Her first ad featured vignettes of 11 groups of various Americans who are “Getting Started” with new phases of their life. Of the eleven, five were non-white and one was an interracial couple. Of the five groups of whites, one was a gay couple, one was a single mother.

There were only three “core” white Americans, one female retiree, a middle aged woman planting tomatoes, and a gardener. Not one of them was blonde, none of the white women (except the single mother) had long hair—and there was not one image of a white heterosexual couple or of a white father.

Why haven’t Bernie’s advertising people received the memo about the new Democratic Party? Probably part of the explanation: Sanders is an old style Leftist from one of the whitest states in the country. Thus, he was free to occasionally take heterodox positions in the past. Though Sanders marched with Martin Luther King and was arrested for protesting segregation, his Congressional career focused on economic and foreign policy issues rather than race.

However, as the nomination campaign has progressed, especially after Black Lives Matters targeted him, Sanders has emphasized his Establishment Left-wing positions on racial issues.

The sole exception: immigration, where Sanders has in the past opposed massive increases in legal immigration and seems to understand that supply and demand affected immigration.

Sanders told Ezra Klein that open borders is “a Koch brothers proposal . . .What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that.”

Sanders later doubled down, telling MSNBC that if “anybody can come into the United States of America . . .there is no question in my mind that that was substantially lower wages in this country.” [Bernie Sanders criticizes ‘open borders’ at Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, by Dave Weigel, Washington Post, July 30, 2015].

Nonetheless, Sanders is no immigration patriot. Though he voted against the 2007 Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, he voted for the Gang of 8 atrocity, the DREAM Act, and wants to expand DAPA. By the time of the first Democratic candidates’ debate, when it became unmistakeable that the party did not intend to compete with Trump for the working class vote, that his collapse into Cultural Marxist identity-politics pandering was complete.

But it is doing him no good. While most polls show him close or leading in Iowa and with a comfortable lead in New Hampshire, these are amongst the whitest states in the Union. In contrast, in South Carolina over half of the Democratic primary voters are black. And there Clinton enjoys a 71% margin among black voters and 34% lead over Sanders.

Nationwide polls show Sanders and Clinton neck and neck among whites, but Clinton has a consistent 40-50 point lead among non-white voters. [The one problem Bernie Sanders has to fix — and hasn’t, by Philip Bump, Washington Post, December 19, 2015]

Non-whites dominate the Democratic primaries in states that have high non-white populations and GOP dominance amongst white voters. These states include the Deep South, Texas, and Arizona. And the four states with the most delegates, including Texas, Florida, New York, and California have a high enough non-white population that it’s impossible for Sanders to win with his pitiful non-white share. [Here’s what Hillary Clinton’s nonwhite firewall looks like, by Philip Bump, Washington Post, January 18, 2015]

Many commentators have wondered what Sanders could do to increase his non-white share. But I can see few options beyond what he’s already done. Most non-whites are extremely Left wing on economic issues and would probably prefer Sanders to Clinton on the issues—if issues were what counted. With the arguable exception of immigration, Sanders has already taken completely standard Leftist positions on these issues—and I doubt immigration has much to do with his lagging support among the black community.

The real reason Sanders is flagging among non-whites: supporting a grassroots candidate and attending political rallies requires some level of civic engagement. The Main Stream Media may not like to admit it but numerous studies have found non-whites are much less civically involved than whites.

As the black political scientist J Foster Bey noted: “There are strong differences in civic engagement by race, ethnicity and citizenship status. Whites are much more likely than blacks, Hispanics or Asians to be civically engaged using any of the four measures. Asians and Hispanics consistently appear to have low rates of civic engagement” measured by volunteering, political participation and community activity. “They also appear to be much less actively engaged in their communities as compared to either whites or blacks” [Do Race, Ethnicity, Citizenship and Socio-economic Status Determine Civic-Engagement?, Tufts University, Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service (2008)]

Blacks may show up to protest/riot over a police shooting and the Democratic Party can bus them to the voting booth, but by and large they are far less likely to get involved in political campaigns.

Indeed, a Google image search of Hillary Clinton campaign rallies or campaign volunteers brings up images that are just as white as a Tea Party rally or Bernie Sanders ad.


Clinton, however, is the default Democratic candidate, and unless there is a Jesse Jackson or Barack Obama to vote for, blacks and most other non-whites will vote for the default candidate. If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he could very well be seen as a serious candidate and some non-whites will follow him, but it would not be because they are attracted to his message or movement.

I have spent a good deal of time in Vermont, and am always stuck that many of the things the Left loves about it are precisely those things which would disappear if it became “diverse.” For example, I visited a public lake with an honor system for you to pay 5 dollars to visit, which you put into an unlocked jar. Suffice to say that in Detroit or Atlanta, locals would skip the fee, trash the lake, and thieves would steal the money that any people gullible enough to play by the rules would have given.

While I am no fan of Bernie Sanders, his political career is a product of a white high-trust society and his unexpected success comes from dedicated and civically involved white Americans.

Unfortunately, neither he nor his supporters recognize that Vermont-style politics is only compatible with the demographics of Vermont.

Sore Losers

via Radix

Sam Francis called the American conservative movement a collection of “beautiful losers.” To look at them now, a more apt descriptor would be “sore losers.” The meltdown of the mandarins of Conservatism, Inc. over at National Review about Donald Trump can only be seen as the last gasp of an increasingly irrelevant “movement.”

The heirs of Buckley would love nothing more than to exercise his inquisitorial powers over Donald Trump and the growing “alt-right” movement. Over twenty “movement Conservatives” penned diatribes against the Donald in the latest issue of National Review. For the most part, these barely rise above the level of “democrats r real racists guyz!” to denunciations of “nativism” and faux patrician concerns about “vulgarity” as defined by Leo Strauss (I’m looking at you, Kristol). What we are seeing is no more than the death throes of Conservatism, Inc. in a wild temper tantrum.

Events have accelerated quickly. First there was GOP “cucksultant” Rick Wilson’s pathetic whining on MSNBC about Donald Trump and the alt-right, to Rush Limbaugh’s acknowledgement that nationalism and populism had overtaken conservatism. The lame conservative movement is on life support.

The dispossession of the Beltway Right is a moment that should be celebrated and seized. Sam Francis once denounced “the managerial verbalist class” which includes the oh so precious contributors to National Review. The controlled grammatical tyranny they have exercised over the thought of the Right is nearing its end. Instead of writing their obituaries with a period, let’s do it with an exclamation mark!

The truth is, publications like National Review and the entire “conservative” movement are nothing more than sinecures for a b-squad managerial elite on the Potomac. Like the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Conservatism, Inc. has been swift and unexpected (at least, to them). They’ve even lost the RNC (Ha!) But with the destruction of this false opposition to our reigning liberal hegemony, a new opposition can take hold.

That’s where we come in. Donald Trump has been a great beginning towards restructuring politics in the United States. In the last year we have seen moves towards nationalism, and even a nascent whiff of a white “identity politics.” Seizing the mantle of opposition brings new possibilities and new dangers. Of course, this is the only way forward.

Francis said the choice:
Between the present elite and its challengers is not merely between one power and another. It is a choice between degeneration and rebirth, between death and survival, for survival is not a right or a gift freely granted by the powers that be. Survival, in the jungle or in political society, is a hard-won prize that depends ultimately on power itself. In this world, wrote Goethe, one must be the hammer or the anvil.The essence of the message from MARs [Middle American Revolutionaries] is that the messengers want to work the forge.
We have to be the hammer! The death of Conservatism, Inc. is going to leave an ideological void on the right. One that we should be eager to fill. Where they offered platitudes, we will offer identity.

One of the main currents that run through all of those pathetic squawkers in National Review’s “symposium” (we get it! You’ve read Plato) is a loyalty to abstractions. They rant and rave about “liberty,” “the Constitution,” “muh rights,” etc. But the truth is, none of those things matter much outside of the particular people that gave birth to them. Our people. Who are being hammered by the pincers of mass immigration and cultural marxism being pushed by our managerial elite.

National Review likes to claim that they have been “standing athwart history yelling, ‘Stop!’” In reality, they have done nothing more than stand behind history yelling “me too! me too!” while chasing off its best minds and adopting yesterday’s liberalism. With this latest stunt, they fall further into irrelevancy.

The “beautiful losers” of yesterday’s conservatism have morphed into today’s sore losers. We're going to wipe the floor with them.

2013: Trump Explicitly Calls for “European Immigrants”

via The End of Zion

When Trump says he wants to let in “good” immigrants rather than Mexican rapists, racists like me naturally hope this is a codeword for “White people.” Call me a bigot, but I tend to find White people a bit more desirable than the hordes of third world welfare leeches and “wretched refuse” our system currently favors. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out, and Trump is a pretty sharp guy, so I’ve had my fingers crossed.

Well, we are no longer left in suspense. Here he is, in 2013, explictly calling for “European immigrants”:
The chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Friday tore into Donald Trump’s immigration message to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), calling his comments “bigoted” and borderline “racist.”
“Donald Trump may provide comic relief, but his bigoted comments at CPAC have no place in the discussion for realistic solutions to our country’s immigration problems,” Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (R-Tex.) said in an email to The Hill.
As the first speaker at Friday’s CPAC event, the real estate mogul and reality TV host called immigration reform a “suicide mission” for Republicans, arguing that “everyone of those 11 million people will be voting Democratic.”
“When it comes to immigration, you know that the 11 million illegals, even if given the right to vote, you know, you’re going to have to do what’s right, but the fact is 11 million people will be voting Democratic,” Trump said.
“You have to be very, very careful, because you could say that to a certain extent the odds aren’t looking so great for Republicans, that you are on a suicide mission,” he added. “You are just not going to get those votes.”
Trump then advocated for opening the borders to European immigrants, who he described as “tremendous” and “hard-working people.”
“Nobody wants to say it, but I have many friends from Europe, they want to come in,” Trump said. “Tremendous people, hard-working people. They can’t come in. I know people whose sons went to Harvard, top of their class, went to the Wharton School of finance, great, great students. They happen to be a citizen of a foreign country. They learn, they take all of our knowledge, and they can’t work in this country. We throw them out. We educate them, we make them really good, they go home — they can’t stay here — so they work from their country and they work very effectively against this. How stupid is that?”
Hinojosa called Trump’s message “an ill-informed economic myth” with racial undertones.

Towards a New Kind of Democracy

via Western Spring

The democratic process and the principle of ‘one man, one vote’, is one of the foundation stones of liberal democracy and is seen by liberals, Marxists and social democrats as an institutional reaffirmation of their ‘sacred’ principle of human equality.
Even so, the implementation and the practice of democracy and the practice of one man, one vote, has throughout history, not been without its problems and without its detractors.

Critics have pointed to the fact that by definition, half of any human population are of below average intelligence, and in an age of advanced technical, political and cultural sophistication, it seems absurd to allow a 50% input into any decision making process, from people who are of below average intelligence. This especially so, when the outcome of such a decision may be irreversible and frequently does have ramifications extending far into the future that will impact significantly upon the future well-being of our society, our nation, or our race.

The sole alternative to democracy is often portrayed as the extreme opposite, rule by dictator or rule by a small elite, however the choice does not have to be one or the other of two polar extremes, and the belief that there is only this one stark choice is deliberately proffered by our liberal mass media, precisely in order to prevent proper debate of the matter. The media have an obvious vested interest in perpetuating a system whereby almost all key decisions within the Western world are disproportionately influenced by that segment of the population least able to engage in critical thinking and most likely to be swayed by the clever marketing ploys of media spin doctors.

Winston Churchill was divide on this subject, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” he once said, but on another occasion he cautioned, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

When One Man, One Vote Democracy Works Best

Democracy works best where the electorate involved, i.e. the body of people eligible to vote; have much in common and/or where the electorate is relatively small; in circumstances where the electorate have a good understanding of the issues at stake, where they are personally acquainted with each of the candidates involved, and where each candidate or vested interest group has equal access to the news and advertising media.


In a committee of say ten people, each member of the committee will have a good appreciation of the issues involved in any decision to be made, they will usually know each other well and will have an equal opportunity at committee meetings to make their views known to the other committee members. Furthermore, if these committee members are all enthusiasts for a particular cause or activity, they will generally share very similar views and so when decisions are made, there is a very high probability that the outcome of any vote will either be ideal, good, or at least acceptable, to the individual committee members involved. As a consequence of these factors, committee members will normally have a significant faith and confidence in the democratic functioning of their committee and the decisions it makes.

The individual members of the committee will in most instances embrace collective responsibility for, and collective ownership of, the decisions made by the committee.

The further we move away from such an ideal situation, the worse democracy functions and the more likely we are to find ourselves in a situation where the democratic system becomes corrupted, loses the confidence of the electorate, and in extreme cases is reduced to a sham process in which shadowy and sinister vested interest groups actively conspire to pervert the course of politics.

Not everyone reading this article will support the principle of democracy and some will state that the average voter is simply not intelligent enough or sufficiently interested in politics to be capable of making the right decisions during elections or at any other time for that matter.

I can understand why intelligent and well-meaning people will be drawn to this conclusion, but we must first acknowledge that for most of us, our experience of democracy is with an electoral system that has already become too distorted, corrupted and perverted in the way I have described above and in other articles, to allow us a truly objective viewpoint.

For most of us therefore, our experience of democracy during our lifetime will be one in which individual electors are rarely inclined to embrace collective responsibility for or collective ownership of, any of the decisions made by government, and have good reason to be suspicious of the legitimacy of the results of elections.

The Problems of a Diverse Electorate

In a multi-racial or multi-cultural society, the electorate are clearly not like the committee discussed above where all voters share a common enthusiasm for a particular interest or cause. A multi-racial or multi-cultural society is by its very nature composed of people from disparate backgrounds with different cultural norms, different aims, wants, needs and objectives.

Where a diverse electorate is concerned, especially where that diverse electorate has been created by relatively recent events, throwing together people who have never before co-existed in close proximity, the likelihood of there being broad support for the outcome of any decision is minimal.


Irrespective of the decision to be made, in a diverse society there will naturally be a strong divergence of opinions and vested interests and this means that any movement in one direction will be countered by an equally strong movement pulling the other way and this is why the typical outcome of government in such a society is all too often one of inertia and stagnation in which the government of the day, often a coalition government, is seen to be unable to take effective action regarding any particular issue.

This is the best that we can hope for from democracy in a truly diverse, multi-racial/ multi-cultural society — governmental stagnation. No-one tends to get what they want from the electoral system; confidence in and respect for the electoral system and for democracy diminishes; electors are rarely inclined to embrace collective responsibility for, or collective ownership of, any of the decisions made by government, and the result all too often is that vested interest groups tend to take extra-parliamentary action in order to advance their interests, in an effort to bypass or force the otherwise dead hand of government.

This extra-parliamentary action can take the form of petitions at one end of the spectrum; while it can also take the form of boycotts; strikes by workplace unions; street demonstrations; the illegal occupation of buildings or open spaces; rioting leading to looting and street conflict; the destruction of property; and in extreme cases bloodshed and acts of terrorism and insurrection.

In Britain today, we have drastically declining faith in, and respect for law and order and our electoral system as our society becomes progressively more and more multicultural and multiracial in composition, and progressively chaotic and dysfunctional.

The Problems Associated with Increasing Constituency Size

In theory, democracy in Britain today should functions best at the level of the Parish or Borough Council, where the ‘constituency’ involved is smallest, where there is the greatest likelihood that voters will understand the local issues involved and will have the greatest likelihood of being personally acquainted with each of the candidates. Furthermore, as such ‘constituencies’ are small and very numerous, they are usually not regarded by the mass media as being individually worthy of much attention and this creates a much more level playing field for the various candidates involved.

In practice, while elections at this level are still affected by political and media campaigning at a the national level, and are therefore a far from level playing field, they do still represent a far more equal contest than elections at the national level and this is why less well established political parties and independent candidates are generally more successful in local elections.

Furthermore, it goes without saying that democracy also functions best in Parish and Borough Council wards where the electorate are most the homogenous in terms of ethnic and racial composition.

Once we move beyond Parish and Borough Council ward elections; there is a decreasing likelihood that electors will understand the complex economic and or legalistic issues involved; there is a decreasing likelihood that electors will have any personal knowledge of the candidates involved, and there is a decreasing likelihood that individual electors will have shared interests with those in other parts of the larger constituency. Nimbyism begins to manifest, as does lobbying by powerful vested interest groups and by organised ethnic minorities, and the mass media in the service of these groups begins to exercise an increasingly corrupting influence over the outcome of elections.

The outcome of elections decreasingly reflects a choice that electors feel happy with. Recent governments for example, have been elected with the support of less than a quarter of the electorate, and this means that all too often, more than three out of four people are left unhappy and do not feel committed to, or collective support for the government of the day.

The Influence of the Mass Media

If the outcome of an election is to command the maximum support from the electorate, then the participants in that election must feel that the election was conducted in a free and fair manner, without undue influence being exerted by one group.

Media Brainwashing 2

Social studies have shown that the opinions that people hold at any point in time are largely determined by the values and opinions broadcast by the mass media, primarily through the television networks. This therefore places an immense onus of responsibility upon the mass media to provide comprehensive, fair and unbiased coverage of each of the participants in elections if the outcome of those elections is to command widespread public support in the long-term.

In practice, we find that the mass media fail miserably in this respect, they routinely exclude certain political opinions and certain political parties from their programming and deny them access to party political broadcasts at election time.

Worse still, the media companies indulge in the blatant manipulation of attitudes and opinion through the storylines of the various soap operas that they broadcast, to such an extent that a deliberate aim of social engineering is clearly their motivation.

In times gone by, people would base their opinions on those of their friends, their neighbours, their relatives and workmates, and during the course of any day, people would be likely to interact with as many as 100 different people each day. They would speak to their spouses and their children, they would walk to a local place of work and on the way meet their neighbours and work colleagues and would talk to them as they walked along, and at work, they would interact with many different individuals and then later in the day, they might socialise with neighbours, thereby gaining exposure to even more opinions.

Each of the people they would converse with would have an individual perspective on the issues concerning them and so each individual would form their own opinions based upon the collective wisdom of their community. No one person or group would exercise undue influence over the opinions of each individual elector.

Today, people often have to get up early and leave home in a hurry to beat the rush hour traffic, spending little time conversing with their spouse. They will drive to work and therefore in place of a conversation with their neighbour, they will listen to a radio programme the content of which will be determined by the people who have proprietorial control over the radio station involved. At work, many jobs are no longer labour intensive as they were in the past and people all too often work alone at their designated workstation and therefore have little time to converse with their work colleagues.


Having returned home after beating the rush hour and in so doing listening to the radio again, people often sink into their settee in front of the TV and ‘veg-out’ with their spouse until it’s time to go to bed.

While watching television, they will absorb the subtle and often almost subliminal messages conveyed in the storylines of their favourite soap opera or other programme, messages determined by the person with proprietorial control over the television stations concerned.

As we can see, the people who have proprietorial control of the mass media companies can exercise much influence over the opinions of the average voter, and this would not be so bad if the electors were listening to locally owned and operated radio and television stations, or if there were a wide variety of proprietors of national media companies, with wide ranging opinions and areas of special interest, but this is clearly not the case.

I don’t intend to go into detail regarding the individuals concerned at this time, but it is now widely known within nationalist circles that powerful vested interest groups and in particular organised Jewry have achieved a situation throughout the Western world in which they own and/or control the bulk of the mass media. This ownership and control has enabled them to promote the values and beliefs that support their particular interests and to restrict the public debate on virtually any issue such that the outcome is invariably favourable to them, irrespective of any adverse impact that might be felt by the public at large.

It is natural that there always will be a tendency for certain more vigorous individuals to have a greater say in matters than others less vocal, but clearly, when probably less than one hundred individuals, almost all of whom are of Jewish decent, control almost all of the mass media of the entire Western World and beyond, such disproportionate influence by such a small group of people with such a narrow perspective can only be regarded as undesirable for the healthy functioning of democracy and the government of our nations.

Problems Associated with Human Inequality

Human inequality is a fact of life. Some people are strong, while others are weak; some people are intelligent, while others are stupid; some people are creative, while others are dull; some people are industrious while others are lazy; and so on.

Therefore, while it is important that everyone feels that they participate in the decision making processes of our society it is foolish to assume that each individual must enjoy participation equal to every other.

Someone who is lazy, mentally retarded and an habitual criminal, is of less value to society than someone who is an energetic, Nobel laureate, who has conducted vital work in discovering cures for the most dread diseases. Therefore it is only logical that the latter person should play a greater part in the decision making process within any healthy society than the former.

It is vital therefore that we reject the foolish Marxian notion that all people are equal, or even of equal value, and begin instead to shape our electoral systems to reflect the unequal contribution that individuals make.

Good Government and a Healthy Democracy

From the considerations discussed above, we can see that there is much work to be done if our current woefully lacking system of democracy and government is to perform properly and to not just represent the wishes of our people but to represent the best wishes of our people, i.e. the wishes of the best of our people.

As a matter of principle, democracy should always operate where practicable at the most local level so that the electorate are familiar with the issues involved and so that they are acquainted and familiar with any candidates involved. Local issues should be decided at a local level, regional issues at a regional level and only those matters which by their nature involve the whole of our nation should be decided at the national level.

Our society must be returned to a situation of greater homogeneity in terms of race, religion and ethnicity if we are to maximise the level of commitment in terms of collective responsibility assumed and collective support demonstrated for the decisions made by government. This is essential if we are to have a stable society governed by the rule of law and it means that we must immediately stop all non-White immigration into the UK and begin a programme of compulsory but humane repatriation of all ethnic minorities, back to their lands of ethnic origin.

We must break up the large mass media corporations and replace them with locally owned and controlled media companies that will more closely reflect the aims and wishes and the character of the people they inform. Most importantly we must remove control of our mass media from the hands of organised minorities.

Lastly, as a basic premise, while we should allow all of our compatriots, other than those currently serving prison sentences or resident in mental hospitals or who have lost mental capacity, at least one vote in all public elections, so that they feel that they ‘own’ the outcome, a system must be devised that grants additional votes to individuals whose qualities demonstrate that they are of greater value to society and who have performed outstanding acts which have contributed to the general welfare of our people. It would be right therefore, for an award winning brain surgeon, or for someone who has a lifetime of charitable work behind them, or for someone who has demonstrated extreme valour on the field of battle and in defence of our nation, to be awarded perhaps as many as ten additional votes in elections. Such a democratic system as this, would allow all folk comrades the opportunity to participate in the process of decision making, while still allowing the best of our people to play a rightfully greater role in that process.

The design of a healthy electoral system, one that is accepted by all and which allows the best of our people to give a strong lead, is therefore eminently achievable, but not within a political milieu which holds as its most sacred principle the flawed notion that all people are created equal and that as an affirmation of this, all people must have an equal say in government. This foolish notion is as we can see all around us, the cause of much misery.

Muslim Invaders, Who Gang-Raped 13-Year-Old Girl for 30 hours, Are “Massacred” by Angry Russians in Reprisal

via Darkmoon

400 angry locals, who happen to be Russian immigrants in Germany, took the law into their own hands recently after a 13-year-old Russian schoolgirl was gang-raped by Muslim refugees in a vicious 30-hour ordeal. Knowing the German police would do absolutely nothing to bring the Muslim rapists to justice, the angry locals apparently put the rapists to death. (LD)

Abuses of migrants in Germany has forced local men to take up arms and teach the foreigners a lesson. The editorial office of Sovsekretno (meaning “Top Secret”) received a message about a massacre that was conducted on the town of Bruchsal by Russian immigrants to Germany — about 400 “Russian Germans”.

“According to police, the scene (a migrant Hostel) was attended by around 120 cars with 3-4 Russian Germans in each. The “Southerners”, the Arabs and the Moroccans, tried to resist and fired guns. But they were beaten with baseball bats and bar stools. The “Rusaki”, as the Russian migrants in Germany call themselves, strolled across all floors, said the source to Sovsekretno about the number of Russian migrants residing in Germany.

According to the source, the cause of the massacre was probably the rape of the displaced 13-year-old Russian girl Lisa.
As was previously reported by the media, in Berlin a group of refugees for over 30 hours raped a 13-year-old schoolgirl. The child was kidnapped on January 11 near the railway station when she was returning home from school.
A conflict of this scale has never happened before in Germany since the beginning of the mass migration of refugees into the country. The abuse of women by migrants in Cologne and multiple cases of rape have angered the local population. The policy of non-intervention by the police and attempts to gloss over the crimes committed by refugees has forced people to protect their families.
A Russian immigrant from the commune of Lichtenfels in Bavaria said: “The city has become dangerous to walk in and even to drive a car. When I stop at traffic lights, I lock the inside doors of the car, so that no one can climb into the cabin. The same is done after my trip to the supermarket. I get into the car quickly and close the doors. Only then do I start the engine.”

According to the Russian immigrant, a woman who moved to Germany 10 years ago, the Muslim migrants do not respect the rules of the road. They walk on foot on the sides of highways and this can cause an accident. Refugee women are seen begging. And the refugee men rob and raid supermarkets. The authorities and the police of Germany are silent about the incidents and just condemn the actions of migrants… [Defective translation].

“In Frankenberg, the supermarket “Hermes” was transformed into a refugee shelter. It houses a thousand people. As a result, the city became restless, and I’m going to get a permit for my wife to bear arms,” said the source to Sovsekretno.

“Local residents are outraged by the impudent behaviour of these migrants. They take masses of products in the local shops without paying for them. When cashiers call the guards, the migrants pretend they don’t understand the language. The mayor of Frankenberg arrived at one of these incidents and tried to speak to them in several languages. To no avail. In the end, he paid for the migrants. This caused observers of the incident to ask: “Why do the native Germans spend their lives working so hard when the migrants get everything for free?”

According to the source, the authorities tried to appeal to the local population to help the migrants and get them to settle down in vacant residential premises. After this, however, there were a series of arson attacks on the private property of those Germans who had helped the refugees.
Currently, men from the Netherlands are protesting against the excesses of these foreign migrants by walking  round the streets in miniskirts. Russian immigrants to Germany have been among the first to defend their families with the use of arms.
Russian migrants who we talked to did not hide their radical views. “If my wife or daughter were harassed by any of these migrants,” one of them said, “I would take a bat and smash them up!”

“Identitarian Hipster” Goes Mainstream

via Aryan Skynet

Breitbart.com, a central node of the somewhat populist, if still leaning neo-con, wing of the GOP, and a major platform for Trump astro-turfing, is highlighting a video from “the German branch of the Identitarian, anti-mass migration youth movement.”

“WATCH: The Future Of Europe – Hipster Right Wingers Slam Merkel’s Migration Catastrophe”
The youth in the video don’t have the typical ‘right wing’ look often seen in the media. The young men and women look like average 20 somethings, no bald heads or combat boots, but plenty of hipster beards and fashionable haircuts.
Of course, I was into it before it was cool, predicting the eventual rise of this sort of thing all the way back in 2013 and have even been credited for it by others.
As we have been calling for for years, under the rubric of “White Nationalism 2.0” we’re not building a subculture, hiding in rural compounds, or wearing uniforms or skinhead boots: we’re just normal white people (albeit with superior fashion sense and better taste in music.)

It’s probably still a bridge too far for American conservatives to discuss race in a straight-forward manner. Even the Trump campaign is narrowly focused on stopping “illegal” and “Muslim” immigration. In substance, the Trump campaign hasn’t gone any further than typical GOP dog-whistling about race, continuing to maintain the line that “liberals are the real racists.” But stylistically, it’s getting harder and harder to maintain plausible deniability, and with the left into full-throated genocidal anti-whiteness, the levee doesn’t look like it’s going to weather the next hurricane.

The Autochthony Argument

via Counter-Currents

Michelangelo, Unfinished Slave
One of the perennial accusations against white colonial societies around the globe—in the Americas, Africa, and the Antipodes—is that they are morally illegitimate because other people were there first. This is what I call the “autochthony argument,” from the Greek “αὐτόχθων,” meaning “springing from the land,” i.e., indigenous. According to this argument, the original inhabitants of a land are its rightful owners (“finders-keepers”), and it is a violation of these rights for other peoples to displace them. Thus all European colonial societies, which more or less involve the displacement of indigenous peoples, are illegitimate.

The first thing to note is that those who appeal to the autochthony argument to dispossess white colonists quietly ignore it when dealing with the colonization of Europe by non-whites. In this case, it is Europeans who are indigenous and non-whites who are depriving indigenous people of control over their homelands. I feel for indigenous peoples around the globe, because as a white man, I too know what it is like to be displaced from one’s home by aliens.

Of course some argue that European populations aren’t really indigenous, since Europeans have invaded and colonized one another’s societies for thousands of years. The indigenous people of England, for example, were invaded and colonized by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans before the present waves of Africans and South Asians. So why should the descendants of Anglo-Saxons or Normans be considered any more “indigenous” than Jamaicans and Pakistanis?

The problem with this argument, of course, is that it still admits that some Europeans are indigenous. Moreover, since all European peoples are descended from the same racial stock, which is indigenous to Europe, when Europeans move from one part of Europe to another, they are not “displacing indigenous populations.” They are the indigenous population, which is merely reshuffling itself.

This is not to discount the sufferings that Europeans have inflicted upon each other. But as bad as it was, it was not the displacement of an indigenous race by an alien one. It is simply different branches of the indigenous population fighting with one another, much like African and American Indian tribes fight among each other. If racial infighting deprives Europeans of the right to call themselves indigenous, why does this not apply to non-whites as well?

Some people claim that the non-white colonization of Europe is tit for tat, since Europeans colonized non-white countries. This argument might be plausible for England, France, and Spain, which had vast colonial empires, and for Holland, Belgium, and Portugal, which had smaller empires. It applies to a much lesser extent to Germany and Italy. Denmark and Sweden also had negligible overseas colonies.

But if European colonization was wrong, then so is non-white colonization of Europe. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Moreover, a punishment is a bad thing, and the advocates of diversity will never admit that non-white colonization is making Europe worse, although it obviously is. Finally, even if the historical injustice argument were valid, it would apply only to those European countries that had colonies, and it would grant rights of reverse colonization only to peoples that were once colonized, and only in the nations that once colonized them.

But the majority of European societies had no overseas empires: Ireland, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Luxembourg, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, etc. Yet all are targets for non-white colonization. Furthermore, the colonial powers are targeted for colonization by peoples they never colonized. It makes no sense that countries like Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, which never had colonies in the Muslim world, are suffering primarily from Muslim colonization.

Since non-white colonization of Europe cannot be justified as punishment for historical injustices, it is sold as a good thing because it increases “diversity” and because Europeans have a moral obligation to open their borders to immigrants who are fleeing poverty and oppression. The trouble with these arguments, however, is that they also support bad old European colonization, which increased ethnic diversity and was driven by poor people seeking resources and oppressed people seeking freedom. And if Europeans have to sacrifice ethnic homogeneity, political sovereignty, wealth, and freedom to accommodate non-white colonists, then why, exactly, was it wrong for Europeans to impose these costs on non-whites around the globe?

As tempting as it is to use the autochthony argument to defend Europe from non-white colonization, it has several problems.

First, it presupposes that mere presence in a territory is morally meaningful. The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery. Later occupants are illegitimate if they displace the first occupants and usurp their territories.

But if mere first presence in a territory confers rights, then why is this confined to biologically modern humans? Other animals are merely present where they live as well. Didn’t Cro-Magnon man displace the Neanderthal? Didn’t mammals displace the dinosaurs? Aren’t practically all living things illegitimate interlopers in previously occupied ecological niches, until we get back to the original denizens of the primordial soup? But does it make sense to regard the entire history of life on this planet as a ghastly moral offense? So much for evolution, I guess.

A Darwinist, of course, would argue that one organism can displace another only by being better adapted for survival. Thus evolution is a process of improvement, rather than a fall from an original state of innocence. Social Darwinists argue that the conquest of the dark races by whites is evolution in action. And, if the darker races are now turning the table and conquering whites, that too is evolution in action. For Darwinists, success in the struggle for power is by definition the best outcome, no matter who ends up on top.

The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.

Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., to improve it and take responsibility for it?

Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers, and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There is a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.

Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it. It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.

Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.

The last thing these Indians want is for whites to take their guilt trip so seriously that they erase the wealth they created and leave the continent as their ancestors found it. Instead, Indians wish to increase their share in the bounty of white civilization through moral blackmail, which just happens to impeach the legitimacy of that civilization’s very foundations. The Indians are untroubled by the moral contradictions of their position, however, because their aim is not justice but unearned wealth.

In truth, indigenous peoples who present themselves as “historical” victims aren’t victims at all. They are actually swindlers. And the whites they accuse of “historical” crimes are not criminals at all but victims of a moral swindle. Giving in to such moral blackmail does not right old ethnic wrongs (the victims and perpetrators of which are long dead). Instead it creates fresh ethnic wrongs: new victims and new perpetrators and new resentments to fester down through the ages. This can only impede amicable and just relations from emerging in the future.

What should the New Right’s position be on colonialism and indigenous peoples? We are universal nationalists. We hold that the best way to secure peace and amicable relations between different peoples is to give every people a sovereign homeland. Where this is not possible — for instance with tribal relict populations in the Americas, Siberia, and elsewhere — the just solution is give these peoples ethnic reservations with maximum local autonomy.

But notice that our aim is to secure a homeland for every people, not to secure the indigenous homeland of every people. That would be nice, but sometimes it is just not possible, and sometimes autochthony should be overridden by the greater good of creating homelands for otherwise homeless peoples.

For instance, there is every reason to reverse the recent colonization of Europe and European diaspora societies by non-whites. There is every reason to reverse Chinese colonization of Tibet. In every case, the colonists have homelands to which they can return. In every case, there are living injustices that can be solved by repatriating invaders. There is, moreover, every reason to create an independent Kurdistan or white South Africa, for in both cases a people is suffering right now because it lacks a sovereign homeland.

But one cannot make an ethnonationalist case to restore the Byzantine Empire, for the Byzantines no longer need a homeland, but the Turks do. Nor can one make an ethnonationalist case for returning Israel to the Palestinians, because the world would be better off if Jews confined themselves to a Jewish homeland. So in the case of Israel and Palestine, the solution is to have two states. A similar solution would be desirable for Europe’s gypsy problem. (Perhaps next door to Birobidzhan.)

The focus of politics should always be the future. We cannot right all the wrongs of the past, but we can create an ethnonationalist world order that minimizes new wrongs in the future.

March Against White Genocide 2016

via Fight White Genocide

This March take part in our annual worldwide protest of White Genocide.

March Against White Genocide will be held on March 19th, the day before the Spring [equinox].

Last years event was a HUGE success. People got out and got active all around the world.

We need EVERY pro-white to hit the streets or the internet on March 19th and tell the world that we will not lay silent while our race is being targeted for Genocide.

If you have any questions, please email me at laurafwg@gmail.com


Trump Answers Derb (sort of)

via The Audacious Epigone

John Derbyshire (The Derb)
The Derb writes:
The Donald Trump campaign is particularly big on “making America great again.” But does the Donald mean the same thing by that phrase that I mean? Yo, Mr. Trump: We have 50,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen stationed in Japan; 38,000 in Germany; 28,000 in South Korea; 12,000 in Italy for crying out loud. You OK with those numbers, Mr. Trump? Hello? I wish someone would ask him.
It's not a full-fledged answer to his questions, but in Trump's campaign book, Crippled America, he writes (p34/35):
We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. These are powerful and welthy countries. We get nothing from them.

It's time to change all that. It's time to win again.

We've got 28,500 wonderful American soldiers on South Korea's border with North Korea. They're in harm's way every single day. They're the only thing that is protecting South Korea. And what do we get from South Korea for it? They sell us products--at a nice profit. They compete with us.


How stupid are we?!


We're spending trillions of dollars to safeguard other countries. We're paying for the privilege of fighting their battles. It makes no sense to me.
To put these excerpts in context, Trump doesn't necessarily call for a draw down in overseas deployments, but strongly insinuates that if the US isn't compensated an amount commensurate with what it costs us to maintain those overseas deployments, they aren't worth it.

Remembering Greville Janner on Holocaust Memorial Day

via The Occidental Observer

Greville Janner
Editor's Note: This article was first published yesterday, January 27, 2016.

The slogan for today’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “Don’t Stand By” — a reference to the widespread Jewish belief that many people in Britain and elsewhere turned a blind eye to Jewish suffering during World War II.

Just in case anyone misses the insinuation, the HMD website spells it out.
The Holocaust and subsequent genocides took place because the local populations allowed insidious persecution to take root. Whilst some actively supported or facilitated state policies of persecution, the vast majority stood by silently — at best, afraid to speak out; at worst, indifferent. Bystanders enabled the Holocaust, Nazi Persecution and subsequent genocides.
This attempt to spread responsibility for the events of 1939–1945 from the perpetrators to Britain and every other White country in Europe has long been an aim of Jewish ethnic activists, and now it seems they have been successful.

A good example is the Holocaust Explained website, intended as an education site for schools and funded by Jewish organisations as well as municipal authorities. It explains that the British have much to be ashamed of in their treatment of Jews before and during the war. So British schoolchildren who up until now have been told their people had a “good war” will now learn another story: Britain is culpable.

Atonement is healthy. A willingness to confront harsh truths about one’s past shortcomings is an admirable and necessary trait.

So it might be reasonable to ask if the Jewish community in Britain might not be prepared to do some soul-searching itself. Specifically it might ask itself how it was that it allowed its community to be led by a suspected child rapist who was widely believed to have been preying on vulnerable boys in care for decades.

During this time Greville Janner QC reached the highest pinnacle of Jewish communal life and, as President of the British Board of Deputies, he provided leadership for his entire community for six years.  He was the founder of the Holocaust Education Trust and as vice president of the World Jewish Congress. He was deeply involved in campaigning for financial restitution for holocaust victims. He sat on the Community Security Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council. He was the confident of Prime Ministers at home and other leaders abroad. For decades the Jewish community in Britain had no more prominent ambassador.

At the end of his career, he was given the ultimate accolade of elevation to the House of Lords and as Lord Janner of Braunstone, was no less active as a roving emissary for the Jews of Britain. It was hard to imagine a prominent dinner, reception or conference would have been complete without him.

Yet at the same time he was widely suspected of raping vulnerable boys in council care homes in Leicestershire. Three police inquiries into his behaviour were mysteriously derailed in 1991, 2002 and in 2007. Yet despite incriminating corroborated testimony, government lawyers refused to proceed with a prosecution.

After the allegations were voiced publicly in court in 1991, during the trial of Frank Beck, a Leicestershire care worker and child abuser, Greville Janner was cheered by supportive colleagues in the Commons when he angrily denounced the allegations against him.

But it was a different story last year. Eventually after widespread public pressure, the humiliated Director of Public Prosecutions was forced into a U-turn. She announced that criminal proceedings would begin.

Following this, Roger Bannister, the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, said: “There is credible evidence that this man carried out some of the most serious sex crimes imaginable over three decades against children who were highly vulnerable and the majority of whom were in care.”

Sadly Lord Janner died in December before the charges against him could be tested.

A government inquiry led by Queen’s Counsel has confirmed there were serious shortcomings in the police investigations and law officers’ decisions.  There was evidence to charge Janner in 1991 and the decision not to charge him then was wrong. In 2002 police failed to supply allegations to the law officers and in 2007 there was again “a realistic prospect of conviction for offences of indecent assault and buggery” and a failure to arrest and interview him.  The shamefaced Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said:  “It is a matter of sincere regret that on three occasions, opportunities to put the allegations against Lord Janner before a jury were not taken.” Saunders reputation has never recovered from a decision last year not to go to court because Janner was suffering from senile dementia.

However his illness did not stop the 87-year-old founder of the Holocaust Education Trust from taking part in parliamentary debates, travelling to Israel for conferences and collecting a hundred thousand pounds in expenses. He was also compos mentis enough to sign over his property deeds to his children thereby putting them out of range of any damages litigation.

The victims were devastated at the cancellation of a “trial of the facts“, due to take place in April. In this procedure a jury would have been asked to decide — without reaching a decision about whether Janner  was guilty — if 22 alleged incidents of abuse from the 1960s to the 1980s had taken place.

Since Janner’s death there has been a steady stream of revelations about this respected figure. A waspish Guardian obituary confirmed that despite 27 years as an MP, he never rose to senior ministerial status because of the rumours that swirled about him. For years threats of legal action saw off the rumours, a danger that has passed now.

And there was a suggestion of financial impropriety. Tory members forced him off one sensitive committee because of one of his many lucrative extra-parliamentary interests, advising well-paid industrial executives of precisely the sort of matters the committee was investigating. Janner sat on the board of the Ladbrokes betting chain run by “controversial” businessman and Jewish community leader Cyril Stein.

Janner’s reputation is now gone.  Even the kindergarten school in Galilee that was named after him has removed the plaque bearing his name.   But the questions remain.

It is a shame that there will be no opportunity to hear from Janner’s close friends in the Jewish community. For instance it might have been interesting to hear from the former Director of Public Prosecutions in 1991, a Jewish lawyer called Allan Green, exactly what happened to derail that first inquiry.  Green has chosen not to comment.  And then there are the other associates such as Community Security Trust chairman — and ex-jailbird — Gerald Ronson. Lord Stanley Kalmes for whose peerage Janner lobbied, was a former treasurer of the Conservative Party. Had they heard any of lurid rumours about Janner that were so widespread since at least the eighties?

Curious is it not, that there is wide debate about another public figure involved in a similar politically sensitive scandal. The DJ Jimmy Savile was also up to his neck in rumours for a long time, and today “who knew what” about Savile is seen as a legitimate question. So why is no-one in the media asking the same about Janner?

Loyalty is an admirable quality, as his family and community have demonstrated.  His daughter Rabbi Laura Janner has hinted darkly at anti-Semitism being the real motive for the allegations. Since the story re-emerged last year she seemed to cope by send as many Syrian refugees to Britain as possible.

It has taken a Jewish dissident writer to do what no one in Fleet Street dare do, and point out that when Janner was carrying out his — alleged — rapes, sometimes — allegedly in the marital bed —  he was also the leader of the Jewish community in Britain. Gilad Atzmon believes that the leadership of the Jewish community should issue a public apology.
At the least, all these prominent Jewish organisations ought to issue an apology or at least admit to gross misjudgement in letting a person who was a suspected paedophile remain a leader of prominent Jewish institutions for almost five decades. Would the English church enjoy such impunity? Would the British Muslim community get away with any of its leaders being associated with buggery and paedophilia? I’ll let you ponder this one.
We have become inured to watching the Jewish state get away with racist policies, murder, ethnic cleansing, WMD and so on. But here in Britain, it is astonishing, yet far from being surprising,  that the head of the Jewish community managed to escape trial for decades over substantive charges of sexual assault, paedophilia and buggery.
If Jewish power is the capacity to silence the discussion of Jewish power, in the case of Lord Janner, it also managed to delete the fact that Britain’s suspected arch sex offender was also the leader of the Jewish community.
It is indeed hard to see how any of this happening to a prominent member of the Catholic Church or Church of England for instance without the connection being loudly pointed out.

On January 27 Britain commemorates Holocaust Memorial Day. At thousands of events children, parents and teachers will hear the words of Eli Wiesel who has written for the Holocaust Memorial Trust about those bystanders who failed to help:
I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
How sad that that the Jewish community is not prepared to listen and speak up for the victims of its leading light, Greville Janner.